@Abderrahmane, most of the scientist has many other interests like psychology, philosophy, arts...! In high school we had subjects such as Logic, Psychology, Philosophy, Latin, History, Music, Fine Arts etc. I'm talking about the good old school called Gymnasium! Later on, we had a choice to take some subjects as mentioned, in the area of humanities, at Universities!

Need a breadth and diversity of knowledge to understand nature and life! People who do not have such knowledge are poor by spirit!

Here is good reading about Donald A. Windsor who is both a scientist and an artist!

http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/SCIENTISTS_AND_ARTISTS_--_DIFFERENCES_AND_SIMILARITIES/523

If a student requires google to write a small text, then he or she probably lacks the qualification to study at that level in the first place. There should be some amount of information that is already in the student's general knowledge to begin with, something that she can draw upon without consulting google.

I am totally for the idea that science students should also study arts and humanities subjects, at least as part of their general education program. This will broaden their horizon and apart from helping them to write better it will help them think about the values and how things connect with one another. Furthermore, arts and humanities students should also have some scientific studies too for the same reason. And in the end they will come to realize that academic disciplines are not that far apart from one another. They are more common than different from one another

The sciences began as "natural philosophy", Laplace's "Essai philosophique sur les probabilités" was originally an introduction added to the 2nd edition of his Théorie Analytique des Probabilités but is perhaps more important than the book and certainly more influential (it is the philosophical essay whence comes Laplace's so-called Demon), and the rest (Bayes, Poisson, etc.) were just as concerned with philosophy and relied upon intellectuals like Locke, Newton devoted more time to biblical studies than physics, and both Einstein & Bohr's reaction to the appearance of particles without trajectories and localized waves was due more to philosophical concerns than any inferences from empirical data. The two who came closest to realizing part of Hilbert's dream of an axiomatic mathematics were both philosophers.

Aristotelian mechanics showed us how far philosophy can be from science by Aristotle's "reasoning" his way into a theory of motion that he could have proved wrong over a thousand years before Galileo's impetus to put it to the test. Philosophy is not empirical, and despite those who would attribute science to the Greeks (or any culture or time before the early modern period), advances in technology and mathematics without any systematic method for extrapolating theory from data (and the worldview we take for granted where such an inquiry is not just desirable but makes sense) is not science. Plato tells one of the reasons for Socrates' execution was the accusation that he was "τά τε μετέωρα φροντιστὴς καὶ τὰὑπὸ γῆς πάντα ἀνεζητηκὼς" ("a meditator on celestial things and investigator of all things under the earth"), which was Greek for being a natural philosopher.

But there is no framework for empirical inquiry without philosophy. Scientists need not study philosophy at the level philosophers do, nor do philosophers need to start running experiments. There is a reason for the philosophy of science and for metaphysics, though, just as there is a method to experimental paradigms.

I think that a liberal arts education that includes literature, philosophy, art and music helps to 'produce a humanistic scientist' who has ability to communicate with laymen as well. A scientist has to be approachable and to be concerned about his/ her society and the global village. We cannot seek science only, and learn science only. With the humanities, a scientist can be a true human seeking the good of society and fellow beings.

I believe that the more complete the education, the higher the level of a person. However, nowadays there is so much information that is difficult to engage in more than one area. It would be interesting to find some of the emotions of the artists in scientists. Similarly, it would be interesting to find a little more the coherence of the scientists expressed in the work of artists. (This comment may open the way to many misunderstandings!)

Dear Anderrahmane,

Without being familiar with humanities a scientist cannot be a scientist only a barbarous employee who works for a living in the field called science. Those people never will understand the truth of Nature. Without knowing and feeling of art (literature, music, visual arts) and history a normal approach to life and environment is impossible. It is a tragedy that some (too many) scientists belong to these sad and regrettable category of people.

I once knew a mathematician, who did not know anything (and also did not care at all) about philosophy, arts etc., but he was very good in the area of maths, in which he was interested. So, pragmatically speaking, the answer is yes - one can be good in a specific area of science, without any knowledge in humanities. The problem, however, was that we could not speak about anything else not being his work- and that´s was really boring!! Of course, a true scientist mast be aware of much more than his/her specific area. Finally, is this is the idea of PhD -doctor in philosophy, isn´t it... Although, to make the life of such persons easier, we have PhD in ..., which in my opinion is nonsense!

Scientists are common men with a bit more understanding and passion about science.

Every scientist has his own philosophy for doing science, own art to complete his work and workmanship. Scientists refer existing literature and produce new literature.

My first answer is a clear yes. To study physics, chemistry, mathematics or biology you don´t need a classical education in humanities. Of course you must have your matura (higher school examina in languages, history, philisophy, arts etc). That means, you must be able to write small texts without google ( @Soraj), to discuss in an polite and accepted manner and you should speak and understand at least one foreign language. With this know how you are able to develop into a scientist and to publish on congresses and in papers.

But, to be such a narrow minded specialist will be very boring in the non-researching time. What about entertainment with your friends and collegues in cinema, theatre, opera, which kind of conversation will take place after you have finished your scientific studies? So I´m missing a very important part of academian life, culture. Therefore my clear second answer is an emphatic: No, You have to complete your scientific knowledge by the other mentioned cultural contents.

PS: how to discuss in RG if you only know your specialities?

Science is a perspective for understanding the universe, including all aspects of humanity, since we are part of this universe. The scientific perspective includes tools for separating what is reasonably possible from that which has been refuted by contrasting it with the available evidence.

In my opinion a true scientist is someone who has adopted this perspective and applies it to all of his or her experience, not just to his or her work.

True scientists can research anything from astrophysics to aesthetics, as long as they follow the basic ground rules for evidence-based reasoning.

Of course, over-specialization limits our view of the big picture, and context is important for understanding just about anything.

Seen in this way, the divisions between "natural sciences" and "social sciences," or between "science" and the "humanities," are false dichotomies. And calling "natural sciences" "exact sciences," as if other disciplines are necessarily imprecise, is... inexact.

I think that it depends on what's the purpose of that scientist and the level of abstractization at which he need to work.

Knowing more is always good because of several reasons which include, but are not limited to, communication like understanding and explaining, exercising different areas of the brain, better social integration and interaction, finding inspiration, etc.

You can be a scientist in several fields like mathematics, physics and chemistry without humanities, you can even be creative, not a simple tool, but it doesn't make it better or more interesting for yourself and definitely not for others around.

Yet, in my opinion, to be a true creative scientist, clearly more than a computing machine and to be a real teacher for others, you should practice and attempt to master the art of communication, pedagogy, have some philosophical interest, enjoy nature and see the beauty in other people's work. So yes, it helps a lot, like learning foreign languages and playing chess and other activities which stimulate thinking, because coherent thoughts bring intelligence.

@Abderrahmane, most of the scientist has many other interests like psychology, philosophy, arts...! In high school we had subjects such as Logic, Psychology, Philosophy, Latin, History, Music, Fine Arts etc. I'm talking about the good old school called Gymnasium! Later on, we had a choice to take some subjects as mentioned, in the area of humanities, at Universities!

Need a breadth and diversity of knowledge to understand nature and life! People who do not have such knowledge are poor by spirit!

Here is good reading about Donald A. Windsor who is both a scientist and an artist!

http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/SCIENTISTS_AND_ARTISTS_--_DIFFERENCES_AND_SIMILARITIES/523

Dear Professor Ljubomir Jacić, the article which you have pointed out expresses a very good explanation of the relationship between the two. I just want to add more examples than those provided (biomedical illustration and engineering drawings) by mentioning the artists governed by science who recreate images of extinct organisms (from the tiniest bacterial colonies ones to dinosaurs), the similar artists/scientist who recreate the bodies, faces and expressions of prehistoric primates and early humans, the landscape artists, the architects, the interior designers, vehicle designers (from bicycle frames and parts all the way up to aircraft and space stations), and professors or teachers who need to capture the attention, interest and imagination of students. Of course, there are many other examples of doing proper science with the use of art and doing outstanding art with the use of science.

Truth is the most beautiful thing to a scientist and therefore to the universe and nature and to a larger part of the human society. A scientist is a person who deals with scientific methods to search, study, verify and validate what is true in nature and what should therefore be true in the human society. To navigate the domain of a scientific research, the scientist has a philosophical and artistic imagination of what he/she is researching. In fact a true scientist has to be some one who is more of an artist, poet, philosopher and above all humanist. Albert Einstein was one of the prolific scientist of the last century but at the same time he was the most humanist and a staunch fighter of causes of social ills.

Science is an art that validates knowledge and ideas. It involves the thinking of what happens behind the scenes to produce the results at hand and therefore is also philosophical. The difference is the angle at which one looks at the issue, not forgetting we are all gifted in different ways.

Well.... I would say that a balance between all the fields is necessary for success... Of course knowing scientific methods and data would be the primary need but also knowing philosophy, ethics and literature would help... or as my history of medicine professor would word it " knowledge of history can heal and show you ways of looking at things that otherwise you would not have thought of"

.Humanities can help the scientist to become a good citizen and in consequence to guarantee a democratic society. However I should like a further question: Do humanities add scientific explanation in cases of underdetermination of positive sciences?

The humanities help the scientist to understand his/her society and to know when his/her science is good or harmful to his/her society. This is the reason why scientists of old are well rounded, good both in the humanities as well as in the science, and the reason why general humanist subjects are taught in the universities. Hence, i will say, the knowledge of the humanities is a must for a good scientist.

Science's and Art's people need to be creative. At some point of history we have separated them (the people and disciplines) in the basis of classification that seems to be another need for humans for understanding, fortunately seems that we are now more aware on the importance of integration and multidisciplinarity to really understand the whole picture. So, going back to the question, probably a scientist can do science without any art, but this is not a time just for doing science but to practicing excellent science to generate reall knowledge, a whole picture knowledge (the most as possible). The same should apply for arts, the application of science on arts enriches the play and players. There are not real reasons to separate technique and creativity, but rising number of iniciatives showing that artistic and scientific fields are quite close to each other.

How the creative process work? Have a look! Yes, I like your answer Patricia as much as @Abderrahmane does!

Let's not forget that every scientist regardless of the field of study (1) needs stamina and focus to create new concepts and knowledge, (2) has to communicate in spoken and written form, and (3) usually works in a team with all the group dynamics involved.

All these features constitute another layer to Ljubomir's fine chart, which from my understanding leads to some influence of humanities on even the purest of scientist.

Yes, you all are right, there is complex system of pilars supporting a sientific creation. Also showing parallelism and convergence in the Evolution of Arts and Sciences. An example was rised in another question at RG, where PERFORMANCE is also highlighted as a pillar of researching (What is performance in regards to research/peer review? by Carol Shansky; https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_performance_in_regards_to_research_peer_review?_sg=BDrdiag7NbnHo6zzRwVSSkxdR9GtJRwb98WEMjPeagPP6P7XCLBYLKFX3fmCNq6M)

Another point: How effective is the interaction/cooperation between artists and scientists in pro of knowledge creation? and further communication of?

A scientist has a pondering and curious mind. He must be inclusive in reading. He/She cannot avoid humanities.

This a very tricky question. Who is scientist- Who can imaginate and follow his/her imaginations to execute them. They do not have to be educated per say. Discoverer of the continents were not PhDs. But addition of education may add knowledge of literature, art etc. But it is not always true. Bill Gates left college and changed the world. His action prevented me not to top the class. On the other hand, education was not required for junior Bush who changed the world too that is upto you to decide in positive way or negative way. Banting and Best from Toronto changed the world by discovering insulin at the time there were not any facilities of science. The Preparation of Insulin (Best, C. H., and Scott, D. A. (1923) J. Biol. Chem. 57, 709–723). The best gift to the world Toronto gave. Hence imagination, determination and execution is called science. Apple was waiting Newton to be born so that he can imagine, be determined and changed the world.

Thanks, Kamal,

Regards,

Subhash

Yes Dear Abderrahmane, A scientist can be good in science and at the same time being good in humanities. There are many examples in this concern. Many scientists are at the same time poets. Ibn Sina wasthe famous philosopher of the time, and also he was the most famous physician,encyclopaedist, mathematician and astronomer of his time.

Yes, we can be good.

But Good-Good no, it needs multidisciplinary intelligence and other skills for giving a plus for science and for humanity.

Dear All,

It is a nice experience to read that practically everybody acknowledged the necessity of humanities in a scientific carrier. However, common modern scientific style seems to be a uniformly deformed one.

When one reads old books or articles from the XVIIIth or XIXth centuries or early XXth century the style of these scientific texts approached literary (belles-lettres) style. Authors had a characteristic and very fascinating manner and elegance depending on the age and the language of the authors. Look at the works of Aristotle, Avicenna, Carolus Linnaus, René-Antoine Réaumur, Maria Sibylla Merian, Immanuel Kant, Charles Darwin, etc.

Regarding the scientific style of our age this is only a skeleton containing basic information and stylistically totally uniformed when compared with the manner of classical scientists/authors.

I used to mention literature, music, art, history and mythology when delivering lectures and recently a student asked me why I had not written an entomology textbook containing these elements. I told her that the reviewer would delete immediately these “unnecessary” things.

Is there an opportunity or a demand to make scientific writing more interesting and approaching belles-lettres? Certainly, I do not think on popular tricks. May have negative consequences of the lack of real style in scientific writing?

The reflection on ethics and truth seems to be able to revive the age-old problem of the relationship between humanistic and scientific knowledge, which arises around the end of the eighteenth century and in the twentieth century expresses the maximum separation between the two bodies of knowledge. This attitude, which involves the dissociation between science and philosophy, and connotes the current Western culture, is defined as 'reductionist'.

If, on the one hand, some philosophers tend to discredit science, on the other hand, many scientists deem unnecessary or misleading what is beyond the scope of scientific analysis. The reductionist approach, however, betrays 'loyalty to the ideal of the research that has no end, it is an ideal that is philosophical exploration of scientific inquiry'. A ‘mature’ culture, however, should give the answer to questions of truth, leaving to philosophical research the possible interpretations and possible solutions to problems of identity.

Thus, philosophy retains an exclusive field of reflection in self-reflection, in that "know thyself" of Delphic and Socratic memory. The relationship between ethics and truth also raises the question of liability in response to the relativism of values, prompted by scientific progress. One suggestion is clear: 'we must return to take seriously a culture that is focused upon a hierarchy of ends and not merely an arsenal tended with unlimited means, such reductionism suggests'.

But it must be a hierarchy of purposes rethought in the light of social change and able, therefore, to generate - in the balance (always provisional and unstable) between the inherited beliefs and new principles of conduct - a form of 'collective recognition' and 'sharing of meanings and values'. This hierarchy of goals in democracy tends to be the subject of a collective bargaining agreement that brings benefits, but also risks.

If a policy of science is inevitable and plausible, on the contrary the politically binding decisions, although democratic, should not affect the ethical issues. Unlike the first one, in fact, the policy of ‘ethicity' does not tend to get something for someone who is the holder of the request, but to prevent that others do or have the freedom to choose to do things that are inconsistent or in conflict with what that those who put forward the request believes it is right to do. And, so, the hierarchy of purposes mentioned above crystallizes beyond measure, proving inadequate to the social change 'in progress'.

I have not given the link for nice picture that I have used in my last answer. Here is a good reading about the "How the Creative Process Works"

http://mises.org/daily/3461

The arrogant ‘scientistic’ dogmatism has come to an end in the last century and even in the most recent times. Countless are, by now, the limits, the conditioning, the shortcomings of purely scientific knowledge, brought to light by the methodological and epistemological analysis and by the reflection of the same scientist. The scientist discovers that to be what he is, he must go further, opening the way to new meta-scientific areas authentically human and humanizing. For the scientist it does not exist efficient alternatives: he should humanize and be subordinate to the values of the human person.

The common mistake amongst scientists is their belief that, if they excel in a particular discipline, tthen hey can transpose their excellence to another without going through the same learning cycle. In other words, they consistently attempt to apply the same reasoning of their discipline to other disciplines and refuse to acknowledge that there are other scientific conventions in the social sciences and humanities for example. And this can be quite endemic to the scientific community at large.

In our university it is necessary for all the students to undergo a total of 33% of their credit towards what we call as liberal arts, no exception whether it is science, technology, arts or humanities. The idea is that it makes them a well-rounded citizen instead of a highly specialized person in a specific domain. I think it has a merit as seen by the discussion above. Liberal arts has a complete mix of all disciplines.

Dear Nageswara,

This 33% of humanity credits means that your university must produce little “Leonardo da Vincis”. This is but an enviable situation. It would be a great advantage if you can recruit some students to participate in this discussion.

Dear Andras

Thanks for your comments. Ours being a liberal arts university and specializes in the education, the liberal arts group is strong and they are able to push that. Sometimes science faculty do grumble to reduce that number without success.

Dear Abelrahman,

I am glad you agree with me.

I have spoken but on the style and not the message. I think that a colourless, monotone manner which is characteristic for most of articles reveals that the author’s cultural background is simply poor. Many would need some education in liberal arts at the University of Northern Iowa.

Dear András and Abderrahmane,

interesting debate about style and content. But could one explain to me, what place "cultural" background, language with style etc have in a scientific paper about nuclear halo states or some other thing from theoretical physics or engineering.

PS: I love culture, but at the right place.

I forgot some remarks:

It´s very important for a researcher and scientist to know beyond the fences of his science because of consequences for environment and mankind. Just remember the experiments to especially dangereous virus. Here the scientist needs responsibility, which he wins from his cultural education and knowledge.

Dear Abderrahmane,

scientific language in natural sciences (my resort) is not real culture, it is "code". If You don´t believe it, try to understand a paper of a natural science, you didn´t study. Genious sudoku is easy. But I really understand your opinion. We need a clear and understandable language in science as well as in every days life.

It´s an interesting question. ;-)

And what about a understandable language in ICT?